DIDYMO SURVEY, LOWER FRYINGPAN RIVER, BASALT, COLORADO 2015

Similar documents
ASSESSMENT OF FECAL COLIFORM IN LITTLE RABBIT CREEK AND LITTLE SURVIVAL CREEK

Hydrology Input for West Souris River IWMP

FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA SUMMARY SHEET

White Oak Creek. Recreational Use Attainability Analysis Summary of Findings. Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research Stephenville, Texas

FECAL COLIFORM MONITORING IN GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY: SUMMARY REPORT OF MONITORING RESULTS FOR

Mud Creek and West Mud Creek

Recreational Use Attainability Analysis Summary of Findings & Public Comment

Taste and Odor Relationships in North Texas Reservoirs. Jennifer Owens Tarrant Regional Water District

Mark West Creek Flow Study Report

Water Quality Report for Auburn Ravine Water Year

MANAGING FRESHWATER INFLOWS TO ESTUARIES

2018 Animas River Water Quality Monitoring

NORTH CASCADE SLACIER CLIMATE PROJECT Director: Dr. Mauri S. Pelto Department of Environmental Science Nichols College, Dudley MA 01571

An experimental habitat enhancement effort for a sandy river: San Rafael River restoration project

Waukegan & Calumet Rivers. All Hands Meeting

Natural Factors Affecting the Level of Osoyoos Lake

Final Drainage Letter Pikes Peak Community College Downtown Parking Lot Colorado Springs, Colorado

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Water Quality Trends for Patchogue Bay

International Osoyoos Lake Board of Control Annual Report to the International Joint Commission

Poudre River District 3. Irrigation Ditch Construction in Fort Collins - Late 19 th Century

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Piedra River Protection Workgroup Meeting #5 Feb. 21, 2012 Ross Aragon Community Center, Pagosa Springs

DOW Number: Survey ID Date: 08/21/2018. Windom Southern

International Osoyoos Lake Board of Control Annual Report to the International Joint Commission

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

LITTLE LOST MAN CREEK (LLM) (formerly USGS Gaging Station No )

Adaptation in the Everest Region

Mapping the Snout. Subjects. Skills. Materials

Environmental Impact Assessment in Chile, its application in the case of glaciers. Carlos Salazar Hydro21 Consultores Ltda.

The Lower Prut Floodplain Natural Park (Romania)

BUCK POINT RANCH. Aspen Associates Realty

LAKE SURVEY REPORT DRAFT VERSION PRELIMINARY DATA (AS OF 07/24/2018) Fisheries Management. DOW Number: Survey ID Date: 07/16/2018

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Cruise Report R/V "HEINCKE" Cruise- No. HE-316 ( 06HK1001 ) 27 January - 05 February This report is based on preliminary data!

Tufts University Water: Systems, Science, and Society (WSSS) Program

Shrubs and alpine meadows represent the only vegetation cover.

Partial Report. Project Leader: Nicolás Lagos. Executive Summary

Duncan Hastie, P.E. Dewberry

Magnetic Island Summary Report 2018

Introduction. The System. Model Limitations, Assumptions, and Parameters. Optional Services Tech Memo

Statistical Evaluation of BMP Effectiveness in Reducing Fecal Coliform Impairment in Mermentau River Basin

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

4. Didymo: An Otago context

Aquatic insect surveys at Mount Magazine State Park and Hobbs State Park Conservation Area with implementation of an educational component

E. coli and Coliform Bacteria Levels of Edgewood s Watershed Katie Schneider and Leslie Reed

Colorado s Instream Flow Program at 40. Celebrating 40 Years of Success and Challenges January 15, 2014 Denver, Colorado

Photopoint Monitoring in the Adirondack Alpine Zone

Technical Report. Aircraft Overflight and Noise Analysis. Brisbane, California. December Prepared by:

CITY OF LYNDEN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REPORT MARCH 1, 2016

The search results explanations of hydrological data

4. Hydrology of the Olentangy River Watershed

Project: Profiling Float Observations in the Aegean Sea

Finn Creek Park. Management Direction Statement Amendment

Colorado s Instream Flow Program at 40. ICWP Annual Conference October 16, 2013 Denver, Colorado

LAKE HURON BEACH STUDY

II. THE BOULDER CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN

MINUTES. Additional Stakeholders including CU, CDOT, Town of Erie, and Weld County have been contacted and invited to the recurring progress meetings.

FINAL Water Year 2012 Bacteria Sampling Report for the Klamath River Estuary

Environmental Impact Assessment of the dredging operations and aids to navigation works in the Argentina s Santa Fe Confluencia waterway.

Trail Assessment Report

International Osoyoos Lake Board of Control Annual Report to the International Joint Commission

Memorandum. Conclusions

Water Quality Trends for Conscience Bay

Yard Creek Provincial Park. Management Plan

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

Stakeholder Meeting #1. An Introduction to the Blind Pass Inlet Management Study

Cruise Report R/V "ALKOR" Cruise- No. HE-365 ( 06AK1101 ) 01 February - 13 February This report is based on preliminary data!

Lake Trout Population Assessment Wellesley Lake 1997, 2002, 2007

Fossil Creek Wild & Scenic River Comprehensive River Management Plan Forest Service Proposed Action - details March 28, 2011

A Brief Overview of the Rio Grande Compact 04/26/06

Groundwater Recharge/Discharge Y 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 16 X Wetland appears to be a contiguous hydraulic system, draining towards Goff Mill Brook.

THUNDER HILL PROVINCIAL PARK

Appalachian Power Company Smith Mountain Hydroelectric Project FERC No Debris Management Plan

SECTION 3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN

Appendix A: San Francisco River Photos Gila National Forest

Phoenix Habitat Restoration Projects

Damn those dams their effects on stream ecosystems

Peace Project Water Use Plan

HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF THE TOURISTIC BERTHING IN ASWAN CITY

KP Lasnaya 1 River

Bridge River Delta Park. Management Plan. Final Public Review Draft

WILDERNESS PLANNING. Wilderness. Interagency Regional Wilderness Stewardship Training. Alamosa, Colorado - March 26-29, 2007

The Seychelles National Meteorological Services. Mahé Seychelles

Chapter 6: POLICY AND PROCEDURE RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX J MODIFICATIONS PERFORMED TO THE TOR

Caravan & Camping Park Sector Annual Report 2011

USGS Methods of Collecting High Water Marks (HWMs)

Portland Water District Sebago Lake Monitoring Programs Lower Bay Bacteria Monitoring Presenting data from 1977 to 2018 Laurel Jackson

Thirteenth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC , Hurghada, Egypt 1249

ETOBICOKE CREEK NORTH TRAIL PROJECT. May 18, 2017 at Michael Power High School 105 Eringate Drive, Etobicoke ON M9C 3Z7

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

Meeting Agenda. Why are we here? Getting Started. Designated Uses. Water Quality Standards

Pathogenic Naegleria from Thermal Springs

January 14,2010. Ms. Linda Bassi Colorado Water Conservation Board 1313 Sherman Street, Room 723 Denver, CO Dear Linda,

Case Study: 1. The Clarence River Catchment

CAFNEC Submission to the proposed amendments to the. Plan of Management

Portable Noise Monitor Report

REPORT OF THE ASIA/PACIFIC AREA TRAFFIC FORECASTING GROUP (APA TFG) FIFTEENTH MEETING BANGKOK, 1-8 NOVEMBER 2010

4 *Contours generalized for estimating average watershed precipitation; adopted from larger map by Geomatrix, 1999.

Transcription:

DIDYMO SURVEY, LOWER FRYINGPAN RIVER, BASALT, COLORADO 2015 Second Annual Report PREPARED FOR: ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY PREPARED BY: COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TIMBERLINE CAMPUS 901 US HIGHWAY 24 LEADVILLE, CO 80461

d FRYINGPAN RIVER DIDYMO ANALYSIS (2015-Second Annual) Contents Executive Summary... 1 Methodology... 1 Results... 2 Discussion of Results... 4 Recommendations... 4 Appendix I. Map of Study Area Appendix II. Didymo Sampling Raw Data: Weight Analysis and Total Biomass Calculations Appendix III. Water Quality Data, Viewing Bucket Coverage, and Field Observations

FRYINGPAN RIVER DIDYMO ANALYSIS (2015-Second Annual) A ( ) Executive Summary As a follow up to research initiated in 2014, Colorado Mountain College Natural Resource Management program (CMC NRM) monitored the Fryingpan River for didymo presence three times during 2015. The first sampling event was in May prior to spring runoff and peak flows, the second was in July following peak flows, and the third was in October to represent baseflow conditions. Didymo is a native, nuisance species in rivers and streams throughout Colorado. A fast growing diatom, didymo covers substrate and has the potential to alter historic macroinvertebrate habitat. Creating effective mechanisms to prevent the spread or introduction of invasive and nuisance species is important for maintaining the health of the Fryingpan River ecosystem and fishery. The continued education of anglers and river users is important to reducing the spread of didymo to other water bodies in the watershed and around the Colorado. Wader washing stations can help reduce the spread of didymo and the introduction of new non-native or nuisance species. This study suggests that increased flushing flows at or above 700 cfs during the spring simulate natural snowmelt conditions and promote bedload migration and the removal of didymo from the substrate. Results indicate increased didymo at all reference sites compared to the 2014 data. Responsible management and consistent dialog between the Bureau of Reclamation, water managers, water stewards, and recreational businesses will assist with flow control for environmental and recreational purposes. Continued monitoring of fish populations, benthic invertebrates, and water quality for nutrient concentrations throughout the Fryingpan could help describe the relationship of didymo in the aquatic ecosystem. An ongoing monitoring strategy is recommended for the Fryingpan River to include sampling of five key sites (Site 1, 8, 12, 15, and 20) three times annually, plus three reference sites upstream of Ruedi Reservoir (Appendix I). This sampling should be complimented with a comprehensive 5 year study at all sites.

Methodology Sampling methodology in 2015 was the same methodology used in 2014 (see Didymo Survey, Lower Fryingpan River, 2014). 20 sites were sampled in 2014. In 2015 some sites were not sampled at each event because of restricted access. Figure 1. Colorado Mountain College field technicians observing didymo coverage with a gridded viewing bucket Table 1. Site locations on the Fryingpan River. Site 1 is the most downstream site, Site 20 is closest to Ruedi Reservoir Site # Latitude Longitude Elevation (meters) Site 1 4359737.27 325111.76 2026.38 18.30 Site 2 4360342.87 326247.01 2053.35 15.55 Site 3 4360275.03 327171.40 2080.21 13.72 Site 4 4360131.45 328129.99 2075.98 22.87 Site 5 4360310.63 328894.53 2097.16 22.87 Site 6 4360565.22 330038.83 2116.96 24.70 Site 7 4360759.15 330970.15 2118.50 13.72 Site 8 4360835.73 332129.37 2132.95 27.45 Site 9 4360373.15 332750.36 2154.66 22.87 Site 10 4360555.00 333830.00 2171.66 13.72 Site 11 4360716.83 334505.54 2156.88 27.45 Site 12 4360439.50 335477.03 2165.46 22.87 Site 13 4360326.35 336348.41 2171.99 13.72 Site 14 4360421.28 337319.98 2191.78 22.87 Site 15 4360082.71 338490.97 2220.00 18.30 Site 16 4359409.83 339213.60 2233.73 18.30 Site 17 4359351.64 340494.25 2251.38 25.62 Site 18 4358936.70 340964.26 2245.92 13.72 Site 19 4358541.00 341676.33 2274.41 22.87 Site 20 4358854.93 342890.30 2286.95 41.17 Average width of river (meters)

Results The following charts represent the total didymo biomass recorded (g/in 2 ) at each site visited and for each seasonal sampling event. Raw data is presented in Appendix II. Figure 2. Colorado Mountain College field technicians scraping didymo from a rock to be analyzed in the lab 0.25 Total Didymo Biomass May 2015 0.20 Biomass (g/in 2 ) 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 20 Site ID Figure 1. Summary of Didymo Biomass from May 2015 Sampling Event * Note 2. The dotted line on the graphs for May and July represents the trend of didymo biomass from Site 1 to Site 20.

Total Didymo Biomass July 2015 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 Biomas (g/in 2 ) 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 20 Site ID Figure 2. Summary of Didymo Biomass from July 2015 Sampling Event *Note 2. The dotted line on the graphs for May and July represents the trend of Didymo biomass from Site 1 to Site 20.

0.16 Total Didymo Biomass October 2015 0.14 0.12 Biomass (g/in 2 ) 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 1 2 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 20 Site ID Figure 3. Summary of Didymo Biomass from October 2015 Sampling Event Discussion of Results The high flow of approximately 830 cfs on June 6 th, 2015 had a noticeable effect on downstream sites closest to Basalt, but didn t reduce the presence of didymo at the more upstream sites. In 2014, peak flow was approximately 760 cfs and lasted 3 days, with flows maintained above 400 cfs for almost two weeks. In contrast, the 2015 hydrograph shows two distinct periods of higher flows. One peak was approximately 700 cfs on June 6 th, 2015 and a second, more sustained peak lasted 4 days, beginning on June 18 th. After these two flushing events the flow returned to 300 cfs or less for the remainder of the summer and fall. The mass of didymo per unit area (g/in 2 ) was measured during the May, July and October 2015 sampling events, represented in Figures 1-3. In May, didymo presence was concentrated near the tailwaters of Ruedi Reservoir and decreased downstream. In July, didymo was distributed more equally throughout the sample sites, with the highest biomass found at Site 15. Didymo presence at the reference sites increased during the May and July 2015 sampling events compared to the same sampling times in 2014. The high flow event in 2014 was significantly higher in nearby gaged tributaries (USGS 09078475 and 09079450) compared to the high flow event in 2015. In October, didymo presence of greater than 5% was observed only at Site 8. The biomass of didymo at Site 8 increased significantly from July to October, but decreased or remained the same for the rest of the sites. This phenomenon may warrant further investigation if similar trends are documented in the future.

Recommendations Creating effective mechanisms to prevent the spread or introduction of non-native and nuisance species is important for maintaining the health of the Fryingpan River ecosystem. The continued education of anglers and river users is important to reducing the spread of didymo to other water bodies in the watershed and around the State of Colorado. Wader washing stations can help reduce the spread of didymo and the introduction of new non-native or nuisance species. This study suggests that increased flushing flows (at or above 700 cfs) for an extended period of time during the spring simulate natural snowmelt conditions and promote bedload migration and the removal of didymo from the substrate. Responsible management and consistent dialog between the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, water managers, water stewards, recreational businesses and other stakeholders will promote appropriate flow control for environmental and recreational purposes. Monitoring fish populations, benthic invertebrates, and water quality for nutrient concentrations throughout the Fryingpan could help reveal correlations between the relationship of didymo and the surrounding aquatic ecosystem. An effective didymo monitoring protocol to detect changes in the ecosystem and document any new occurrences is crucial to understanding both presence and impacts of didymo. Recommended didymo monitoring for the Fryingpan River includes five key sites on the lower Fryingpan (Site 1, 8, 12, 15, and 20) and the three reference sites upstream of Ruedi Reservoir to be sampled three times annually: pre-high flow, post-high flows and late summer/fall (baseline flow)(appendix I). This sampling regime should continue annually, supplemented with comprehensive 5 year studies at all sites. Sampling should follow the same protocol CMC NRM used, which can be found in the Didymo Survey, Lower Fryingpan River, Basalt, Colorado 2014 Report.

Appendix I. Map of Study Area 15

Appendix II. Didymo Sampling Raw Data: Weight Analysis and Total Biomass Calculations May 2015 Foil Weight (g) Inlet Norrie Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14 Site 15 Site 16 Site 17 Site 18 Site 19 Site 20 1 0.4528 0.3267 NR NR NR NR NR 0.8397 0.4714 NR 0.8817 0.206 0.4989 NR 0.3665 0.481 0.5717 0.3669 NR 0.6178 2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.4423 0.543 NR 0.6657 0.5908 0.2481 NR 0.8521 0.5764 0.5831 0.3146 NR 0.3376 3 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.5139 0.8184 NR 0.5567 0.5291 0.5365 NR 0.3061 0.6526 0.3398 0.2704 NR 0.3884 4 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.3605 0.1213 NR 0.842 0.4419 0.2162 NR 0.3606 0.3415 0.4504 0.3739 NR 0.3873 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.4848 0.3756 NR 0.4501 0.2463 0.252 NR 0.4162 0.2645 0.5093 0.3798 NR 0.5483 Conversion to Inches 2 1 11.5237 8.310296 NR NR NR NR NR 21.38308 11.99769 NR 22.45336 5.234498 12.69847 NR 9.32452 12.24232 14.55363 9.334713 NR 15.7284 2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 11.25613 13.82227 NR 16.94903 15.04036 6.307332 NR 21.69906 14.6734 14.84414 8.001952 NR 8.588061 3 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 13.08071 20.84029 NR 14.17139 13.46806 13.65663 NR 7.785346 16.61521 8.644123 6.875603 NR 9.882597 4 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 9.171622 3.076088 NR 21.44169 11.24594 5.494425 NR 9.17417 8.687445 11.46254 9.513094 NR 9.854566 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 12.33916 9.556415 NR 11.4549 6.261463 6.406716 NR 10.59102 6.725254 12.96349 9.663443 NR 13.95733 Average Area (in 2 ) 11.5237 8.310296 NR NR NR NR NR 13.44614 11.85855 NR 17.29407 10.25006 8.912714 NR 11.71482 11.78873 12.49359 8.677761 NR 11.60219 TOC % 3.53% 0.00% NR NR NR NR NR 25.38% 19.41% NR 13.46% 4.00% 13.45% NR 16.24% 9.83% 17.52% 15.95% NR 8.60% Average Didymo Wt (g) 0.06 0 NR NR NR NR NR 0.99 0.66 NR 0.7 0.12 1.13 NR 1.38 1.17 2.82 1.34 NR INLET NORRIE Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14 Site 15 Site 16 Site 17 Site 18 Site 19 Site 20 Biomass g/in 2 0.01 0.00 NR NR NR NR NR 0.07 0.06 NR 0.04 0.01 0.13 NR 0.12 0.10 0.23 0.15 NR 0.00

July 2015 Rock Foil Weights Inlet Norrie Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14 Site 15 Site 16 Site 17 Site 18 Site 19 Site 20 North Fork 1 NR NR 0.8509 NR NR NR 1.516 NR NR 0.611 0.3241 NR 2.018 NR 0.4977 NR 0.6228 0.7736 0.3345 0.3736 NR 1.343 0.6358 2 NR NR 0.3169 NR NR NR NR NR NR 0.4455 0.8833 NR 0.493 NR NR NR 0.3751 0.2208 0.3794 0.5275 NR 0.5009 NA 3 NR NR 0.2648 NR NR NR 0.8082 NR NR 0.8758 0.5696 NR 1.0408 0.4813 0.6621 NR 0.3434 0.5309 0.4742 0.6876 NR 1.1524 NA 4 NR NR 0.4799 NR NR NR NR 0.4435 NR 0.3362 0.2208 NR 0.5196 0.5048 0.2379 NR 1.1169 0.5177 0.6234 0.234 NR 1.3731 NA 5 NR NR 0.282 NR 0.4161 NR NR 1.1186 NR NR 0.8258 NR NR 0.2421 0.6957 NR 0.3854 0.2249 0.6759 0.2367 NR 1.1543 NA Foil Surface Area (in 2 ) 1 NR NR 21.45257 NR 0 NR 38.31352 0 NR 15.37086 8.097659 NR 51.03972 0 12.49859 NR 15.67 19.49293 8.36131 9.352534 NR 33.92779 15.99957 2 NR NR 7.915132 NR 0 NR 0 0 NR 11.17527 22.27394 NR 12.37944 0 0 NR 9.39056 5.478901 9.499569 13.25405 NR 12.57972 NA 3 NR NR 6.594345 NR 0 NR 20.37008 0 NR 22.08381 14.32133 NR 26.26672 12.08284 16.6663 NR 8.586933 13.34025 11.90284 17.31275 NR 29.09589 NA 4 NR NR 12.04734 NR 0 NR 0 11.12457 NR 8.404406 5.478901 NR 13.05378 12.67858 5.912403 NR 28.19593 13.00561 15.68521 5.813534 NR 34.69086 NA 5 NR NR 7.030382 NR 10.42995 NR 0 28.23903 NR 0 20.81626 NR 0 6.018877 17.51809 NR 9.651675 5.58284 17.01614 5.881982 NR 29.14406 NA Didymo Average Area NR NR 11.00795 NR 2.08599 NR 11.73672 7.872719 NR 11.40687 14.19762 NR 20.54793 6.15606 10.51908 NR 14.29902 11.38011 12.49302 10.32297 NR 27.88766 15.99957 TOC % Average Didymo Wt (g) NR NR 0.2303 0.0518 0.2896 0.0726 0.2962 0.4529 0.1503 0.2283 0.2069 0.1988 0.3781 0.2989 0.2656 2.4794 0.1766 0.0431 0 0 1.2525 Inlet S Fork Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11 Site 12 Site 13 Site 14 Site 15 Site 16 Site 17 Site 18 Site 19 Site 20 Sum Total Biomass (g/in 2 ) NR NR 0.020921 NR 0.024832 NR 0.006186 0.037624 NR 0.013176 0.01608 NR 0.009675 0.061419 0.028415 NR 0.173396 0.015518 0.00345 NR NR 0.044912 0.455606

Oct-15 Rock Foil Weights (g) Site 8 Subsite 1 0.3333 Subsite 2 0.1279 Subsite 3 0.2704 Subsite 4 0.3622 Subsite 5 0.2163 Foil Surface Area (inches^2) 1 11.71872 2 4.417978 3 9.482998 4 12.74594 5 7.560067 Average Area (in^2) 9.185139 Average Didymo Wt (g) 1.2525 Site 8 Total Biomass g/in 2 0.14

Appendix III. Water Quality Data, Viewing Bucket Coverage, and Field Observations May Water Quality Data Site # Time Date Temp. ( C) ph SC (us/cm) DO (mg/l) Notes Site 1 10:30:00 AM 5/7/2015 7.3 7.93 293.7 10.86 Water turbid from storms/runoff/spring melt. Los of sandstone floc. Site 2 11:15:00 AM 5/7/2015 7.9 8.08 238.9 10.87 Lots of red floc. Site 3 11:30:00 AM 5/7/2015 8.3 8.15 236.4 10.72 Site 4 ** Not visited. Site 5 12:00:00 PM 5/7/2015 8.4 7.96 236.9 10.57 At mile marker 3 Site 6 12:25:00 PM 5/7/2015 8.8 8.16 240.3 10.46 Continued red floc, water turbid. Site 7 ** Site 8 1:00:00 PM 5/7/2015 9 8.14 233.5 10.64 Water clear, not turbid, no floc. Site 9 1:30:00 PM 5/7/2015 9.8 7.9 188.1 10.71 Bucket 1 went into bottle 8. 4th bucket is from channel. Site 10 ** Site 11 2:00:00 PM 5/7/2015 9.9 7.9 188.1 10.71 Norrie * 3:30:00 PM 5/7/2015 9.1 7.45 44.5 10.29 Thin 60% coverage. Did not see this last year. N. Fork * 3:45:00 PM 5/7/2015 No sign of didymo. Res Inlet * 4:15:00 PM 5/7/2015 8.3 7.89 80.9 10.66 75% coverage. Much more than last year Site Site 12 8:45:00 AM 5/8/2015 5.1 7.3 226.2 10.8 Water clear, thin coverage but all over rock. Site 13 9:15:00 AM 5.8.15 5.5 7.88 228.7 10.86 Check foils. Might have +1 Site 14 ** Site 15 10:00:00 AM 5/8/2015 5.5 7.94 224.8 10.45 Site 16 10:30:00 AM 5/8/2015 6.1 7.99 216.2 10.55 Site 17 11:00:00 AM 5/8/2015 6.1 8.07 226.1 10.26 Site 18 11:30:00 AM 5/8/2015 5.8 8.17 222.6 10.54 Thick in channel Site 19 ** Site 20 11:30:00 AM 5/8/2015 5.5 8.2 183.1 11.43 *Reference sites at Norrie, N. Fork and Res Inlet **Sites 4, 7, 10, 14, and 19 were not visited

May Viewing Bucket % Coverage Site # Time Date Bucket # 1 Location # 2 Location # 3 Location # 4 Location # 5 Location Bucket avg Site 1 10:30:00 AM 5/7/2015 0 middle 0 R 0 R 0 R 0 R 0 Site 2 11:15:00 AM 5/7/2015 0 R 0 R 0 R 0 R 0 R 0 Site 3 11:30:00 AM 5/7/2015 0 R 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 Site 4** Not visited Site 5 12:00:00 PM 5/7/2015 0 R 0 R 0 R 0 R 0 R 0 Site 6 12:25:00 PM 5/7/2015 0 L 0 L 0 M 0 R 0 R 0 Site 7** Not visited Site 8 1:00:00 PM 5/7/2015 60 R 45 R 20 M 15 L 25 M 33 Site 9 1:30:00 PM 5/7/2015 35 M 15 R 75 M 80 R 40 M 49 Site 10** Not visited. Site 11 2:00:00 PM 5/7/2015 30 R 20 M 80 R 40 R 20 R 38 Norrie* 3:30:00 PM 5/7/2015 N. Fork* 3:45:00 PM 5/7/2015 Res Inlet* 4:15:00 PM 5/7/2015 Site 12 8:45:00 AM 5/8/2015 25 M 50 R 50 R 50 R 75 R 50 Site 13 9:15:00 AM 5.8.15 80 R 50 R 65 R 60 R 80 R 67 Site 14** Not visited Site 15 10:00:00 AM 5/8/2015 95 R 95 R 80 R 80 R 80 R 86 Site 16 10:30:00 AM 5/8/2015 80+ R R 60 R 80 R 90 R Site 17 11:00:00 AM 5/8/2015 100 M 100 R 100 R 100 R 100 R Site 18 11:30:00 AM 5/8/2015 25 R 40 R 75 R 100 R 100 R Site 19** Not visited Site 20 11:30:00 AM 5/8/2015 100 M 100 R 100 M 100 R 100 R *Reference sites at Norrie, N. Fork and Res Inlet **Sites 4, 7, 10, 14, and 19 were not visited

July Water Quality Data Site # Time Date Temp. ( C) ph SC (us/cm) DO (mg/l) Notes Site 1 3:00:00 PM 7/15/2015 13.7 7.67 224.6 8.65 A LOT OF SEDIMENT AND OTHER ALGAE - HARD TO SEE DIDYMO Site 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NOT VISITED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION Site 3 3:00:00 PM 7/14/2015 12.8 8.17 226.8 9.2 Site 4 ** NA NA NA NA NA NA NO VISITED Site 5 2:35:00 PM 7/14/2015 11.9 7.62 225.1 9.18 #3 WAS 100% COVERED IN A THIN LAYER OF DIDYMO LAYERED WITH A LOT OF SEDIMENT Site 6 2:00:00 PM 7/15/2015 13.7 8.12 221.9 8.58 Site 7 ** NA NA NA NA NA NA NOT VISITED Site 8 1:10:00 PM 7/15/2015 12.6 8.22 216.1 9 Site 9 1:55:00 PM 7/14/2015 10.9 8.07 216.6 9.65 Site 10 ** NA NA NA NA NA NA NOT VISITED Site 11 12:40:00 PM 7/15/2015 11.5 7.42 209.1 9.13 Norrie * 11:20:00 AM 7/15/2015 11.9 6.72 44.4 8.45 N. Fork * 11:40:00 AM 7/15/2015 9.9 6.7 28.6 8.75 Res Inlet * 12:00:00 PM 7/15/2015 12.4 7.46 882.1 8.2 EXTREMELY HIGH WATER Site 12 8:50:00 AM 7/15/2015 7.6 7.59 210.1 9.63 Site 13 9:30:00 AM 7/15/2015 8.3 7.81 212 9.83 Site 14 ** NA NA NA NA NA NA NOT VISITED Site 15 1:00:00 PM 7/14/2015 9.3 7.98 207.5 9.71 Site 16 10:20:00 AM 7/15/2015 8.3 7.91 203.8 10.36 Site 17 12:20:00 PM 7/14/2015 8.7 7.87 206.2 9.88 Site 18 11:30:00 AM 7/14/2015 7.5 7.7 206.3 10.01 Site 19 ** NA NA NA NA NA NA NOT VISITED Site 20 9:50:00 AM 7/14/2015 6.7 6.87 203.3 10.51 *Reference sites at Norrie, N. Fork and Res Inlet **Sites 4, 7, 10, 14, and 19 were not visited

July Viewing Bucket % Coverage Site # Date Bucket # 1 Location # 2 Location # 3 Location # 4 Location # 5 Location Bucket avg Site 1 7/15/2015 50 R 20 R 30 R 20 R 10 R 26 Site 2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Site 3 7/14/2015 >5 R 0 R >5 R 0 R >5 R ~5 Site 4 ** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Site 5 7/14/2015 10 R >5 R 100 R >5 R >5 R 25 Site 6 7/15/2015 >5 R >5 M <5 R 15 R 25 R ~11 Site 7 ** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Site 8 7/15/2015 40 R 20 R 20 R 30 L >5 R ~23 Site 9 7/14/2015 40 R 50 L 70 R 15 R 60 M 47 Site 10 ** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Site 11 7/15/2015 10 M 10 R 5 R 15 R >5 R ~9 Norrie * 7/15/2015 40 R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 40 N. Fork * 7/15/2015 35 R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 35 Res Inlet * 7/15/2015 >5 R NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA >5 Site 12 7/15/2015 >5 R >5 R 25 R 70 R 20 R ~25 Site 13 7/15/2015 60 R >5 R 30 R 40 R 50 R ~37 Site 14 ** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Site 15 7/14/2015 60 R 20 R 20 R 80 R 5 R 37 Site 16 7/15/2015 40 R 70 R 90 R 60 M 50 R 62 Site 17 7/14/2015 50 M 70 R 15 R 70 R 100 R 61 Site 18 7/14/2015 30 R 40 R 70 R 35 R 20 R 39 Site 19 ** NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Site 20 7/14/2015 50 M 80 L 75 R 50 M 50 R 61 *Reference sites at Norrie, N. Fork and Res Inlet **Sites 4, 7, 10, 14, and 19 were not visited

October Water Quality Data Site # Date Time ph Temp (SC (μs/cm) DO (mg/l) Notes Norrie * 10/27/2015 11:25 7.45 3 69.2 11.3 No sample taken North Fork * 10/27/2015 11:35 7.54 3.4 38.4 11.64 No sample taken Res Inlet * 10/27/2015 11:55 7.87 4 133.3 12.13 A lot of green & brown algae covering rocks 20 10/27/2015 12:25 8.62 9.9 176.2 12.22 Thick mats of green algae, more algae than didymo but didymo present 18 10/27/2015 12:45 8.4 9.5 186.1 10.27 17 10/27/2015 12:58 8.31 9.2 187.7 10.3 16 10/27/2015 13:12 8.4 9.2 186.8 10.41 15 10/27/2015 13:18 8.32 9.1 187.7 10.06 More didymo in areas with less moving water 13 10/27/2015 13:35 8.24 9 206.1 10.43 12 10/27/2015 13:42 8.28 8.5 198.2 10.52 11 10/27/2015 13:50 8.29 8.4 200.6 10.74 9 10/27/2015 14:00 8.4 8.1 209 10.89 No sample taken 8 10/27/2015 14:07 8.53 8.1 210.4 10.95 6 10/27/2015 14:31 8.47 8.1 218.4 10.84 Where there is moving water there is no didymo. Banks have ~50% but is covered in red silt 5 10/27/2015 14:42 8.43 7.9 225.1 10.94 3 10/27/2015 14:52 8.41 7.7 229.8 10.96 2 10/27/2015 15:00 8.37 7.6 230.7 10.97 1 10/27/2015 15:10 8.34 7.5 231.4 10.84 No sample taken *Reference sites at Norrie, N. Fork and Res Inlet

October Viewing Bucket % Coverage Site # Date Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Norrie 10/27/2015 <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% North Fork 10/27/2015 <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% Res Inlet 10/27/2015 <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% 20 10/27/2015 18 10/27/2015 0 0 0 0 0 17 10/27/2015 0 0 0 0 0 16 10/27/2015 0 0 0 0 0 15 10/27/2015 <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% 13 10/27/2015 0 0 0 0 0 12 10/27/2015 0 0 0 0 0 11 10/27/2015 0 0 0 0 0 9 10/27/2015 <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% 8 10/27/2015 20% R 60% R 10% M 80% R 60% M 6 10/27/2015 50% RB 5 10/27/2015 0 0 0 0 0 3 10/27/2015 0 0 0 0 0 2 10/27/2015 0 0 0 0 0 1 10/27/2015 >5 >5 >5 >5 >5

2024 © travelsdocbox.com Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Feedback